A rearview-mirror look at the election

- I keep seeing complaint after complaint about the effects of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, pretty much all of them carping about the wicked influences it allowed organizations with murky origins to have on election outcomes. These complaints rarely note that one of (if not the) biggest spenders this election cycle was AFSCME, the public-employees union, with over $87 million spent. Union spending is always . . . different.

- Republican consultant Stan Barnes complained bitterly about a brochure sent around by the opponents of Proposition 302, the measure that would have emptied the well-stocked bank accounts of the First Things First preschool project. The brochure told voters that there was lots of fat still in the state budget, so why were greedy lawmakers after their worthy project's funding? Or some such language. I saw it, too, and I couldn't believe how disingenuous it was. But, alas, I pitched the brochure along with the rest of the mountain of campaign material I received at home. Sure wish I'd kept it.

- Speaking of advertising. Lame-duck Congressman Harry Mitchell is a decent, honest guy, as I've said many times. Personally, I'm sorry to see him go. That said, old Harry gets at least a dishonorable mention for a TV ad in which he declared Congress needs to get its financial house in order. Oh . . . my . . . gawd! Harry voted for what very well may become America's most expensive entitlement. In the middle of the Great Recession, I should add. This is not the behavior of someone intent on forcing Congress to make any spending choices, much less tough ones.

- I don't know the reasons why Ben Quayle won the District 3 congressional seat by 18,000 votes, a 12-point margin. The effect of the big Republican wave of 2010 washing through a GOP-dominated district, I suppose. I was one of those who thought Democrat Jon Hulburd would do a lot better. But here's a thought: Did incongruity play a role? Hulburd portrayed himself as very conservative. VERY conservative for a Dem. But only on key, attention-getting issues, such as Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, which he professed to enthusiastically support. Not just tolerate, mind you. But really support. On the other hand, Hulburd was completely supportive of the union-backed "card check" proposal, one of the most radical bills floating around Congress. Intellectually, it's hard to make sense of one candidate holding two positions like that. Of course, opposing SB 1070 probably would have been political death in District 3.

- In one of his last campaign events, Democratic candidate for Senate Rodney Glassman reportedly urged supporters to remember him when the race for mayor of Tucson kicks off. Well, why not? Who ever took seriously Glassman's race against John McCain?

Speaking of whom, it can now be revealed: I thought Glassman's music video, "Sweet Home Arizona," was pretty clever. I am the only non-Glassman acolyte to think this, I am sure.

- I want to say this just one more time: Opponents of Proposition 302 - by whom I mean the people who truly knew the stakes at risk, not the people who fell for the disingenuous "save the kids" rhetoric - have no business saying anything when the ax starts falling on the state budget. They know basic services like education are going to be cut. Cut hard. Yet they defended their wasteful boondoggle to the death. The failure of Prop. 302 is now Exhibit A regarding why government programs, even the most useless ones, almost never go away.

In addition to supporting every (losing) Democrat on the Arizona ballot, Tucson turned down its Proposition 400, which would have added a half-cent-per-dollar sales tax. Now the city may have to lay off 400 workers, including police and fire. The measure was crushed, 3-2. What happened? Is it possible that even progressives recognize there has to be limits to taxation? If it had succeeded, Prop. 400 would have made Tucson one of the most heavily taxed cities in the U.S.

- President Barack Obama said he has no regrets about his ambitious political agenda and doesn't believe voters rebelled against any of it. Nancy Pelosi, outgoing House speaker, has no regrets, either. Neither does the New York Times editorial page, which (like Obama and Pelosi) believes voters were just generically angry. In other words, the news just keeps getting better and better for Republicans. None of that administration-saving Clintonian pull-back of 1994 for these guys.